• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:542] Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chomsky said:
Bingo. He's criticizing the very first step in the process of peer review - publication! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Clearly you don't understand the process. When you publish a paper, your goal is to have it published in a peer reviewed journal. You submit your manuscript to the journal, and are assigned a number of anonymous peers who read and criticize your paper. This is what's typically referred to as "peer-review." Your paper might get rejected outright. It may be accepted as is. But the most likely outcome is that you are forced to make a number of changes, rework analyses, restate assumptions, correct conclusions, etc. before they will accept and publish your paper.

Yes, peer review doesn't stop there. it will get further scrutinized after it's published, but publication is NOT the very first step in the process of peer review.
 
ataraxia said:
This is not the first time, won't be the last time. But science still remains a self-correcting process- because even after peer review, even if stuff gets through, other investigators will not be able to reproduce the findings.

But celebrating and touting it now just means you hate science and higher education. There is a war on education, and you have been programmed by dear leader to be a loyal foot soldier. In the meantime, you are destroying your country- just to advance the short-sighted greed and interests of a handful of corrupt oligarchs.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this war on education appear to be pointed at the exact people that are supposed to be CHAMPIONING it?

Peer review is clearly not working as intended. And yes, when trust is breached, it is a hard thing to earn back.

Why on earth would you think, or expect, people to rush off to start believing the same journals that had fraudulent data in them?
 
Napoleon said:
Great. So explain to me, if it happened at all, how these thorough reviewers missed her open data fraud knowing that an anonymous blog of her peers easily detected it when they looked at it 11 years later.
Click to expand...
It happens from time to time. People can fake data, journals aren't soothsayers, they aren't omniscient. People aren't going to read things and know if it's absolutely right or wrong. The fact that you think that's how it should work demonstrates your ignorance of this subject. Anyone trying to claim that peer review would automatically detect any and all forms of faked data are ignorant of science and scientific publication. However, if people can sneak faked data through it will likely eventually be rooted out and disproven, I suppose the timeline may depend on the importance and relevance of the claim. If it's a hot topic that many people are studying, it's more likely to be discovered earlier. That's how peer review and science actually works. There are people out there that will try to fake data and results for one reason or another. Everyone knows the story of Jan Schön, dishonesty is found in every profession. He got published too, though was found out quickly because physicists are a bit quicker on the uptake than the rest and also his research was in a very active topic. But you seem confused, peer review doesn't innately uncover deliberate fraud. You should educate yourself on the process before you start running your mouth about it.
 
NOLA Dude said:
The high-profile academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published and then later retracted her study. That journal requires peer review to be published so it was peer reviewed. How did they not catch the lies?
Click to expand...

Again, your article did not speak to the bolded.

Geezus.
 
Cope said:
Wouldn't this war on education appear to be pointed at the exact people that are supposed to be CHAMPIONING it?

Peer review is clearly not working as intended. And yes, when trust is breached, it is a hard thing to earn back.

Why on earth would you think, or expect, people to rush off to start believing the same journals that had fraudulent data in them?
Click to expand...


You notice who is in the White House? You believe the 2020 election was stolen from him?
 
Napoleon said:
Peer review is supposed to be on the front end to vet submissions so scientific journals don’t publish total bullshit. It’s not supposed to work by publishing obvious bullshit and waiting for anonymous bloggers to point out data fraud 11 years later.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't published before nor know too much regarding science and scientific publication.
 
Taylor said:
??

Typically, they don't "get out into the realm" unless they pass peer review first.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

You publish your study & your findings. Other's read it, and review it, if they desired.

If the readers further desire, they re-create the study or experiment, and publish there results. If this gets done enough, consensus eventually builds

That's how the process works. It's not formally defined.
 
Ikari said:
Where's the omniscient overlord capable of detecting any and all deliberate fraud?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that there isn’t a problem with peer review when open data fraud goes undetected for 11 years after publication in one of the most highly regarded journals until anonymous bloggers say something?
 
Ikari said:
However, if people can sneak faked data through it will likely eventually be rooted out and disproven, I suppose the timeline may depend on the importance and relevance of the claim. If it's a hot topic that many people are studying, it's more likely to be discovered earlier.
Click to expand...
But it may take decades, even for stuff so "important and relevant" that it appeared in every seminal textbook for generations.

www.newscientist.com

How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies

(Image: Paul D. Stewart/SPL) Some of the most iconic images in biology hold a dark secret. Haeckel's Embryos: Images, evolution, and fraud delves into their history IT's embarrassing but true: some of the most influential drawings in the history of biology are wrong, exaggerated to fit a thesis...
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com
 
Chomsky said:
Again, your article did not speak to the bolded.

Geezus.
Click to expand...
You must be confused because this isn't one of your 6 paranoid measles threads.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. The journal is global in scope and submission is open to all researchers worldwide.
www.pnas.org

PNAS

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans the biological, physical, and social sciences.
www.pnas.org
 
TamleeB said:
Deflection.
Click to expand...
Not a deflection at all. You support, believe and voted for the most dishonest person to ever set foot in the WH. All this new flash proves is that dishonest people exist everywhere and none belong in any positions of authority.
 
Napoleon said:
Peer review is supposed to be on the front end to vet submissions so scientific journals don’t publish total bullshit. It’s not supposed to work by publishing obvious bullshit and waiting for anonymous bloggers to point out data fraud 11 years later.
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true.

There's different levels of publication. Peer review involves building consensus. The only way to build consensus is through publication.

There may be some peer review taking place before publication, a "passing around" of the paper of sorts. But, it is not exhaustive. That comes after publication, when the experiment or study is recreated, found to be repeatable, and consensus is found.
 
Chomsky said:
What are you talking about?

You publish your study & your findings. Other's read it, and review it, if they desired.

If the readers further desire, they re-create the study or experiment, and publish there results. If this gets done enough, consensus eventually builds

That's how the process works. It's not formally defined.
Click to expand...
If you go to the website for any major journal, it will explain how the peer review process works.

E.g. for Nature

Editorial criteria and processes | Nature

Editorial criteria and processes
www.nature.com www.nature.com
 
Taylor said:
Clearly you don't understand the process. When you publish a paper, your goal is to have it published in a peer reviewed journal. You submit your manuscript to the journal, and are assigned a number of anonymous peers who read and criticize your paper. This is what's typically referred to as "peer-review." Your paper might get rejected outright. It may be accepted as is. But the most likely outcome is that you are forced to make a number of changes, rework analyses, restate assumptions, correct conclusions, etc. before they will accept and publish your paper.

Yes, peer review doesn't stop there. it will get further scrutinized after it's published, but publication is NOT the very first step in the process of peer review.
Click to expand...

Any peer review occurring prior to publication is only the first preliminary step. The process continues after publication.

To characterize any peer review prior to publication as definitive, is a mischaracterization. It's only a step in the process.

And again, each journal has different levels & requirements. But it's out in the scientific community where consensus build, or not. (as we see in this case).
 
Last edited:
If it wasn't Harvard while Trump is bashing Harvard, this wouldn't be a thread.

MAGA has no interest in protecting scholarly studies. They're hostile to basic scientific facts.
 
Taylor said:
But it may take decades, even for stuff so "important and relevant" that it appeared in every seminal textbook for generations.

www.newscientist.com

How fudged embryo illustrations led to drawn-out lies

(Image: Paul D. Stewart/SPL) Some of the most iconic images in biology hold a dark secret. Haeckel's Embryos: Images, evolution, and fraud delves into their history IT's embarrassing but true: some of the most influential drawings in the history of biology are wrong, exaggerated to fit a thesis...
www.newscientist.com www.newscientist.com
Click to expand...
It may take decades, it may take years, yes. Unfortunately, humanity lacks omniscience.
 
j brown's body said:
If it wasn't Harvard while Trump is bashing Harvard, this wouldn't be a thread.

MAGA has no interest in protecting scholarly studies. They're hostile to basic scientific facts.
Click to expand...
Why the desperate attempts to tie this to "MAGA"?
 
Napoleon said:
Are you trying to say that there isn’t a problem with peer review when open data fraud goes undetected for 11 years after publication in one of the most highly regarded journals until anonymous bloggers say something?
Click to expand...
Well let me know when you discover perfect knowledge, I'm sure the rest of humanity would be interested.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom